Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › AMD/ATI › Upgrading 280x to 290x, what benchmarks, noise, cooling, pictures, eyefinity etc would you like to see?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Upgrading 280x to 290x, what benchmarks, noise, cooling, pictures, eyefinity etc would you like to see? - Page 3

post #21 of 64
Thread Starter 
stock 280x. Stuff running in background, nothing "optimized", just like a real PC thumb.gif

even took the photo with my iphone instead of screenshot rolleyes.gif







compared to rdr09's scores:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdr09 View Post

7950 @ 1230, which is a bit faster than your stock 280X and a 290 @ 1100, which is about equal to a stock 290X . . .



7950 @ 1255 and a 290 @ 1250 . . .




That reference 290X is meant for watercooling.

Edited by overclockerjames - 10/29/15 at 3:44pm
post #22 of 64
Subbed! Waiting for results. Was going to pull the trigger on a used 290X,but im not so sure since 16 nm is nearby,and i don't quite like used cards.
post #23 of 64
Thread Starter 
tried overclocking the 280x a MILD 5%, HALF of what these reviewers got from the same card, and the whole PC crashed. mad.gif

won't be trying that again. CPUs and GPUs just don't overclock like they use to. You're extremely lucky if you get 10% from even water-cooled stuff now days. rolleyes.gif

and this is why I'm doing this benchmark, because that review website had a 280x that very easily overclocked far more than my retail 280x.
Edited by overclockerjames - 10/29/15 at 3:16pm
post #24 of 64
Thread Starter 
stock 280x tomb raider results at 5720x1080 ultimate. 1920x1080 wouldn't work for some reason

again nothing is optimized, stuff running in background, just a normal result anyone should be able to get with similar hardware.



post #25 of 64
Thread Starter 
stock 280x tomb raider results at 5720x1080 HIGH settings. 1920x1080 wouldn't work for some reason

again nothing is optimized, stuff running in background, just a normal result anyone should be able to get with similar hardware.


post #26 of 64
Thread Starter 
3dmark Firestrike does not work, probably has something to do with the eyefinity settings, although Valley and Heaven work fine at 1920x1080 so IDK

when I ran Firestrike I could hear the music but the screens are black. Similar to how Tomb Raider was at 1920x1080, but once set to eyefinity 5720x1080 Tomb Raider worked fine.

ANY OTHER TESTS BEFORE I THROW THE 290X IN? Because swapping video cards back and forth is not enjoyable, this is my main PC not a test bench biggrin.gif
post #27 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by overclockerjames View Post

tried overclocking the 280x a MILD 5%, HALF of what these reviewers got from the same card, and the whole PC crashed. mad.gif

won't be trying that again. CPUs and GPUs just don't overclock like they use to. You're extremely lucky if you get 10% from even water-cooled stuff now days. rolleyes.gif

and this is why I'm doing this benchmark, because that review website had a 280x that very easily overclocked far more than my retail 280x.

well, we already know that your 280X does not oc. it's silicon. But, even a stock 290X is easily 30 - 35% faster than your current card due to lottery.

depending on your budget, i'd go with a 390. it is as fast, if not, faster than the 290X out the box. like i said, that reference 290X is meant for watercooling.

BTW, those runs of mine were using old drivers from two years ago. 13 drivers. the next omega is coming soon.
Edited by rdr09 - 10/29/15 at 8:05pm
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 16 / 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 10 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 16 / 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 10 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #28 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdr09 View Post

well, we already know that your 280X does not oc. it's silicon. But, even a stock 290X is easily 30 - 35% faster than your current card due to lottery.

depending on your budget, i'd go with a 390. it is as fast, if not, faster than the 290X out the box. like i said, that reference 290X is meant for watercooling.

BTW, those runs of mine were using old drivers from two years ago. 13 drivers. the next omega is coming soon.

man to hear you guys talk the 290x is the crappiest card ever

when I ran Heaven benchmark the 280x hovered in the mid-60 C range, never got close to 70. If the fans changed speeds I couldn't tell, sounded the same to me.

We will see how the 290x does.
post #29 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by overclockerjames View Post

man to hear you guys talk the 290x is the crappiest card ever

when I ran Heaven benchmark the 280x hovered in the mid-60 C range, never got close to 70. If the fans changed speeds I couldn't tell, sounded the same to me.

We will see how the 290x does.

not the card itself. just the cooler. that reference cooler.
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 16 / 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 10 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 16 / 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 10 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #30 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdr09 View Post

not the card itself. just the cooler. that reference cooler.

How did this card get through all their testing and still end up so crappy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD/ATI
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › AMD/ATI › Upgrading 280x to 290x, what benchmarks, noise, cooling, pictures, eyefinity etc would you like to see?